July 21st, 2010 by AlanDappenMD in Better Health Network, Health Policy, Opinion, Primary Care Wednesdays, Research, True Stories
No Comments »
After seven years, my wife has finally stopped asking me for “The Power of DocTalker” story of the day. Now when I start with the details of the latest case report justifying the model, she stops me with “I get it, I get it! Go write the case report up and post it on your website for others to ‘get it,’ too.”
Case reports center on the mission of our medical practice, with points regarding care that include quality, accessibility, convenience, affordability, empowerment, trust, and price transparency. Because our patients pay us directly for the service and don’t necessarily expect any insurance “reimbursement,” we are a very unique practice. We adhere to the points in our mission and also outperform all our local competition — i.e. medical offices that accept insurance payment for service in order to survive as a business.
To the patient, our services cost a lot less than services available via the insurance model. About 40 percent of our clientele have no insurance, and the other 60 percent have insurance yet chose to use our services because they believe it’s worth paying directly in order to assume control of their care. (As a quick aside — my favorite clients in this group are health insurance executives and CEOs of large companies, who have the best health insurance in the country.) Read more »
April 19th, 2010 by Davis Liu, M.D. in Better Health Network, Health Policy, Opinion
No Comments »
In a recent Time magazine article, the author suggests, as many others have done in the past, that forcing patients to be more like customers and comparison shop will drive healthcare costs down. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The theory of consumer-driven healthcare goes like this: If there was more information about the costs of doctors, hospitals, imaging tests, and procedures, people would hunt around to find the best deal, stimulate competition, and drive pricing downward. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Saving Money and Surviving the Healthcare Crisis*
February 10th, 2009 by Dr. Val Jones in Health Policy, Medblogger Shout Outs, Opinion
2 Comments »
Dr. Rob Lamberts does an admirable job explaining why physicians are worried about the Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) approach to identifying Medicare fraud. Complying with Medicare coding and billing rules is so difficult that physicians regularly resort to undercharging for their services, just to avoid the perception of fraudulent practices. Any medical practice that bills more than average is potentially subject to RAC audit, and the auditors themselves are paid a commission for finding “fraud.” In many cases, the “fraud” amounts to insufficient documentation of appropriate and necessary work performed by the physician.
Dr. Rob writes:
The complexity of E/M coding makes it almost 100% likely that any given physician will have billing not consistent with documentation. Those who chronically undercoded (if they are still in business) are at less risk than those who coded properly. Every patient encounter requires that physicians go through an incredibly complex set of requirements to be paid, and physicians like myself have improved our coding level through the use of an EMR. This doesn’t necessarily imply we are over-documenting, it simply allows us to do the incredibly arduous task of complying with the rules necessary to be paid appropriately.
Have I ever willingly committed fraud? No.
Am I confident that I have complied with the nightmarish paperwork necessary to appropriately bill all of my visits? No way.
Am I scared? You bet. The RAC will find anything wrong with my coding that they can – they are paid more if they do.
Dr. James Hubbard writes:
It would be fine if they were truly looking for fraud and abuse, but they look for some technicality or just a different interpretation. Forget about any recourse. A few years ago, I was asked to pay Medicaid back $5000. I protested they were completely wrong with their interpretation of their findings. The auditors said I had to pay it, but could argue for a refund by sending forms and proof to the “review committee”. I did that and received a reply that the $5000 was too small for the review committee to take up. I stopped taking Medicaid.
Sounds like the Spanish Inquisition, doesn’t it?
***
For more excellent analysis of the subject, I strongly recommend Dr. Rich Fogoros’ recent book: Fixing American Healthcare.
